Underwater ICBM

RC is tough to do underwater

File: image%3A1437.jpg (108KB, 1341x841px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1341x841px

Yeah.

>>31103096
How about we take your idea but let's go crazy with it. Instead of one final stage, let's put a whole bunch of them on there, and instead of it launching from the country of origin, have it be able to lurk wherever it wants to, underwater.

File: ohio2.jpg (33KB, 524x378px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 524x378px

>>31103096
Gee OP

What the fuck do you think.

>>31103096
Absolutely, but why bother with radio control?

Have a set plan of travel with the path laid out before it even launches. Once it launches, assuming that there may be animals and things that get in the way, allow for sensors that can calculate temporary deviations in course depending on the size of the approaching object, like a whale or a mountain.

It then recorrects to proper course and continues on its way to San Francisco, ending Dianne Feinstein for good.

>>31103126
Yea something like that. Im just trying to think if its something that could happen.
It takes away from having people man a submarine. Just fire and forget the enemy. Might take a while to reach the target but the get taken out with no risk of casualties on your side and if sunk no one can salvage and point fingers to who was on a submarine belonged to.

>>31103441
>if sunk no one can salvage and point fingers
Says who? If one of these was designed to cross the Pacific you're not going to be building an upscaled torpedo, it would have to run on propellers, and would require an engine and fuel like a regular submarine.

This whole idea is essentially just a UUV with an SRBM on it, but for some reason you want to hold them back in the country of origin and make them travel to the target and then launch, rather than having them hide near a potential target.

>>31103096
A super cavitation torpedo with trans-oceanic range that launches an 8 pack of Brahmos-II supersonic cruise missiles right before it stops in San Francisco / LA / Victoria / Vancouver / Seattle / etcetera and detonates it's own warhead.


I like it, get some draft designs up to my office by next Monday, we'll go from there.

>>31103110
Proofs? Do you have proofs Russia do this?

>>31103096
Torpedoes as slow as crap compared to missiles and take up a lot of fuel

>>31103499

Presumably for internal security reasons. If you can't trust your military to hold up in a crisis, or your ship crews not to defect, then you might want a weapon that you can keep close to hand but project globally, like an ICBM.

Problems:

1) A country that can deploy ABM tech can quickly develop a countermeasure.

2) As a means of concealing the origin of an attack, it's so exotic that you won't be able to keep the secret and so it'll be obvious who launched the weapon.

3) A country that can develop this incredibly advanced and exotic technology (and service/maintain it) has the kind of polity and economy that the trust factor above won't be a problem.

4) A country that can develop something this advanced and exotic has the tech base to simply win with conventional nuclear quadrangle.*

All in all, I think the tech is too complicated to bother with. ICBMs and terrorist-deployed nukes do the job of this tech much better, and are far easier to develop and maintain as capabilities.

Is it *possible*? Yes, I think so. A very big supercavitating torpedo with a second stage as a cruise missile, plus some midstage rocket to handle the transition. But totally not worth it.

* The triad of ICBMs, jets, subs, plus terrorist-planted weapons.

>>31103096
Aren't drug cartels already doing that?

>>31103693
If you can't trust your ship crews not to defect then nuclear deterrence is the least of your problems.